Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to stand in this chamber and acknowledge Sorry Day. It is surprising how one little word—the word 'sorry'—in any context can heal the hurt and re-establish a relationship of trust and respect. An individual's psyche changes from one of pain to one of being valued. Sorry Day is an opportunity to celebrate the apology delivered by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on 13 February 2008, when he finally uttered the words that many across this great nation of ours had waited for. Before I cite his words, let me say that it was probably one of the defining speeches in the Australian parliament. It was a speech that transcended the politics of a party and in fact represented the views of the members of the House—whilst there were some who dissented. It conveyed to all Australians the genuine sense that Australia had reached a watershed level of acknowledging an aspect of our history. To that extent, the importance of the member for Griffith's speech on that day will, I think, be etched in the minds of many Australians—both Indigenous and non-Indigenous—and will not be forgotten. The Prime Minister said:

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

The work of the healing of this nation has taken a leap forward, but it is far from over and there is still much to be done. When you consider the context of the speech and what was derived from that speech, the passion and the drive of an individual within the parliament in a leadership role probably shifted Australia's psyche considerably to one of compassion, to one of understanding and to one of finally recognising that there is a duality. In a sense we have a duality: a British heritage from the colonisation of the country and also an Indigenous heritage from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who have existed on this land for 40,000 years. We as a nation have never really acknowledged the fact of the duality of both cultures, and yet we seem to separate them at times and look at one as prevailing over the other, depending on which group you belong to. But nevertheless it is about a nation—and Australia is a great nation.

Tom Calma, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, also highlighted the fact that the apology was only just the beginning when he responded to the then Prime Minister's speech. He said:

This is not about black armbands and guilt. It never was.

It is about belonging …

That devastation cannot be addressed unless the whole community listens with an open heart and mind to the stories of what has happened in the past and, having listened and understood, commits itself to reconciliation.

For today is not just about the Stolen Generations—it is about every Australian.

Sorry Day is a time to celebrate, a time to honour the memory of those who were affected and a time for all of us to commit to working together to change the future. A pivotal foundation stone of the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's speech is:

The truth is, a business as usual approach towards Indigenous Australians is not working. Most old approaches are not working. We need a new beginning—a new beginning which contains real measures of policy success or policy failure; a new beginning, a new partnership, on closing the gap with sufficient flexibility not to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach for each of the hundreds of remote and regional Indigenous communities across the country but instead allowing flexible, tailored, local approaches to achieve commonly agreed national objectives that lie at the core of our proposed new partnership; a new beginning that draws intelligently on the experiences of new policy settings across the nation.

The intent of the 42nd Parliament to set a destination for the nation, to have a clear point to guide our policy, our programs and our purpose, was meritorious and the work has been progressed, but not as far as I would have expected.

I think when we look across the work that was undertaken under his leadership, the COAG reforms with respect to Indigenous affairs focused on some very key and critical areas: health, in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality; education, in academic attainment and pathways that would allow children to acquire literacy and numeracy skills commensurate with those of any child within Australia; and employment, with employment opportunities where Indigenous Australians would take their place in the workforce alongside any other Australian. In the early years, the focus of that work was to look at the first eight years of a life but also to look at mothers in pregnancy to ensure that the birth of a child and birth weight were of a quality that meant that the child born had a good foundational start to life. That intent was committed to and put into place and it came in under the title of Closing the Gap. It contains significant merit within its construct, but the bilateral agreements that impinge on the Closing the Gap strategies that are part of those key planks are also affected by the relationship and the commitment of various jurisdictions.

But I think the other thing that is more challenging is that Closing the Gap and the strategies around it are not universal. One would think that in a country where there are 800,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who reside in all jurisdictions, we would and should be able to case manage families whose experiences leave them challenged in the context of both social deprivation and the underlying social determinants in life. We should be far more effective in the implementation. I want to put this proposition. If we had 800,000, we would have to take one quarter of those 800,000. That top quartile will be those employed in good positions, would be part of the Australian workforce and would have the same success rates and achievements across the continuum of life that gives benefit to quality of life, good health, good education, good employment and career path opportunities.

But the other side to that is that the other three quartiles, 600,000, require degrees of intervention, and I use the word 'intervention' in terms of support, in order to bring them to a point where their place within Australian society would in the decade reach a point where they are commensurate or very close to that of any other Australian. One of the challenges in the Close the Gap strategy is that they are targeted. I know that in my own home state when I was involved in the process five targeted communities formed the basis of the early years initiatives, which meant that all those outside those communities did not get the same intensity of support and the preventive measures that were identified within those strategic approaches. It means we also have the challenge of people living within capital cities and large urban settings not having access to the services that we sometimes assume they have. One of the sad facts that still prevails is that racism is an issue we have not fully grappled with in this country, and this parliament has had a debate on the issue in recent times.

There is also a sense that, when you do not have the level of education, you do not have not so much the strength of character but the confidence to challenge those who are far more articulate in language than somebody who does not purport to be. The classic example of this is that when any of us go to a doctor and a doctor prescribes and tells us what our symptoms are then we accept in absolute terms that description of our illness. In Australian society we make an assumption that standard Australian English is equally understood by every Australian. But it is an assumption that we should not make, because the levels of acquisition of literacy vary substantially. If we look at the NAPLAN results and look at what is on the My School website, we can see the variations demographically, and we can certainly see them by socio-economic status. So there are some challenges in how we use the foundation stone of the apology to still lever the changes that are required in this country.

I think the other part is that we have to change the way in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people become proactive participants in the partnerships with governments and their instrumentalities, that is the agencies, and not be passive recipients. When we sit in committees or in organisations then we come to those tables with an equal understanding to a high degree. We have an understanding of those who sit opposite us so that when we renegotiate we have got some common understanding. We have access to information that makes it very easy to accept the way in which we negotiate. We also know that if we have outcomes then we want to work to win-win situations, not win-lose or win-plus versus win-minus. So those negotiations are absolutely critical. When I was working in Sydney I spoke to a colleague in the private sector and said, 'If you are doing a takeover of a company or you are making a major change in the relationship with another group that is a competitor, how do you go about it?' What he described to me was that whole notion of having equalness in understanding of the parameters in which the negotiations occur, having equalness in terms of the information that you have. And you have the right people at the table. And you make sure that it is a reflection of the corporate companies that are at the table, no different to the way in which we operate within the committee structure of this House. I want to suggest seven simple steps to real engagement for sustainable change based on the work of an author whose book I read on a flight between Sydney and Perth. What I liked about the book was the fact that he talked about human relationships. He also said that if we negotiate then why not share information equally and allow a decision to be arrived at by mutual agreement based on all of the information because you get a better result, you get sustainability and you get the acceptance of responsibility.

When we did the COAG work we worked as jurisdictions. Normally it is the Commonwealth versus the states and territories, but on the Indigenous health one we transcended our jurisdictions, we said, 'Let's identify the responsibilities.' So we identified what the Commonwealth responsibilities would be—and it was not just funding; it was around the way in which Commonwealth agencies that had resources would support the directions we were seeking. Then we identified what the states and territories were responsible for and then we looked at the joint responsibilities. That process enabled us to set a course for the reforms that are occurring—albeit limited by nature of the regions and areas they have selected.

The following are the seven steps that I would suggest, because I think these would make a difference and the Alice Springs setting and context would not be problematic. The first step is in terms of the client. I will use the word 'client' in the context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We need to understand the community and the problem. We need to understand the problem or the reason that we want change but, equally, we need to ask: what is the implication if we do nothing? In the context of the cornerstone of the member for Griffith's key words, we cannot afford to leave the status quo nor operate within the way of the old.

The second point I would make in the seven-stage process is to clarify and find out what is really going on—what is the reason for the current situation and how do you ensure a community voice is heard in that context? I would equally challenge any member of this parliament, both senators and House of Representatives members, as to how much they really know about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities within their electorates. Indigenous Australians are our constituents but how often do we in this House as individuals engage in order to address the gaps that exist? I think that is something that members of this House, leadership within this country and the agencies involved should do.

My partner had a phone call from Canberra where she was asked about the tri-state region of Western Australia, and it was to do with an aged-care facility. The Commonwealth voice on the phone said to her, 'We want you to do a surprise visit,' and she said, 'Okay; tell me how we are going to do a surprise visit, because we will have to charter a plane and fly over the community and somebody will have to come and pick us up.' The Commonwealth officer said, 'Just get a Budget hire car. When you land, take the Budget hire car or hire car and drive into the community to the nursing home and do a spot check.' It is the reality that communities face, and we have to close that gap.

I think the next step is to make it happen. Is the change negotiated and agreed to by and acceptable to both parties and who will have the necessary power to make the decisions? I do not envy ministers and shadow ministers for Aboriginal affairs, because they carry an extraordinary burden on their shoulders to try to be responsible for the resolution of very complex situations. But they often operate without major portfolio agencies and they have to negotiate with each agency to deliver the types of services within Aboriginal communities. That in itself is challenging, particularly if your colleagues are not walking with you. It is easy to agree to things within a party context or within cabinet but, when it comes to the implementation stage or to make it happen, you then say, 'The minister for Aboriginal affairs can do that; that is part of their portfolio.' We have to change that.

The next step is to confirm: make sure that what we have talked about and what we were going to deliver happens. What processes will be established to have open dialogue on the measures, outcomes and sustainability of achievements? In order to do that we are going to have to make sure that that occurs. Next there is continue: make the change stick. What can be done jointly and singularly to ensure change is achieved and sustaining?

If we combine all of those steps then we should achieve all of those facets and the key elements of the COAG reforms that the previous Prime Minister put into place with his cabinet. We should be seeing achievable gains. Skills development and economic participation are absolutely vital. It should not be left just to the mining or resources sectors. There has to be encouragement across the board, and certainly there is much more to do.

One of the things people on the ground say to me is that they do not want touchy-feely, feel-good approaches, because they never deliver and they continue to fail. We have to make some hard choices, but we also have to be upfront. I reaffirm that all members of this Australian parliament, regardless of their political affiliation, need to genuinely identify the gaps in Aboriginal communities and organisations within their electorates if we are serious as a parliament to the commitment that was made in the 42nd Parliament. Unless we do that we will never know the true extent of the problem. But I also want them to identify the jewels in the crown, because there are things that are working and working well. I believe we should identify those and celebrate them. Remember that it is not the exclusive responsibility of the minister for Indigenous affairs or a shadow minister; it is our collective responsibility.

I again reaffirm that I am extremely grateful for the work of the previous Prime Minister, because he has charted a course that enables all parties in this House and all governments, regardless of who is in power, to take a leadership role, to make a difference and, in two decades, to close not just the gaps but to celebrate the bicultural element of this nation: to acknowledge the British heritage alongside that of the first nations people, who have been here for some considerable time. To that end, I thank the previous Prime Minister for the apology, and certainly I thank the parliament for acknowledging Sorry Day in the parliament last week.

See this speech in context